HukHukHuk, server #2, about 6:30am GMT+10, 18th of September

[Winterous]

Admin Name: HukHukHuk

Server: Server #2.

Date/Time: About 6:30am at GMT+10, 18th of September 2013.

Synopsis: I was a borg from the start of the round named Mr. Melonborg, and Brick Lacon had been traitoring around the AI core.
At some point he got bested and stripped in space to the right of the core, he was still alive, and before I realised it was him I started dragging him away to rescue him.

At this point I realised it was Brick, I knew him to be a traitor as he'd attempted to murder someone who I saved from him and also had tried to attack me during our space-dragging-fight; I realised it was him, said "Oh wait, this is Brick, I needn't assist him then", and stopped trying to rescue him. I was on default laws by the way.

He was lying on the platform near the engineering door that leads to the AI SMES, he was two spaces away from the door.
Then Huk contacted me and the rest is shown in the log, he gibbed and job banned me from AI/Borg.



Log:

Mr. Melonborg [145.9] states, "brick is at AI upload"
Mr. Melonborg states, "brick is at AI upload"
Nepereta X [145.9] says, "ai why is the computer room bolted below me"
Mr. Melonborg [145.9] states, "trying to break in"
Mr. Melonborg states, "trying to break in"
Adam Hortford [145.9] asks, "Lawrence where are you?"
Dirk Huk [145.9] says, "WHO WANTS TO OD ON CRANK"
Brick Lacon has been pulled from Adrian Bickman's grip by Mr. Melonborg
Brick Lacon raises his middle finger.
Brick Lacon has been pulled from Adrian Bickman's grip by Mr. Melonborg
Talark Rudeson [145.9] says, "AI STUN HIM"
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Tranquility [145.9] states, "I do not know, X."
Dirk Huk [145.9] asks, "ANYONE?"
Leonel Jardine [145.9] says, "ai can you open the doors"
Mr. Melonborg [145.9] states, "oh wait"
Mr. Melonborg states, "oh wait"
Adrian Bickman [145.9] says, "I took care of Brick"
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Mr. Melonborg [145.9] states, "this is brick"
Mr. Melonborg states, "this is brick"
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Brick Lacon gasps.
Mr. Melonborg [145.9] states, "I needn't assist him then"
Mr. Melonborg states, "I needn't assist him then"
Tranquility [145.9] states, "Mr Brickman has it under control."
You smash through the foamed metal with the crowbar.
You hit the metal foam to no effect.
Adrian Bickman [145.9] says, "Stolen items in his possesion, breaking into the AI core, attacking an officer."
Adrian Bickman says, "Stolen items in his possesion, breaking into the AI core, attacking an officer."
Mr. Melonborg states, "Well done"

---

Admin PM from-HukHukHuk: uhh did you let some dude die on purpose
You slipped!
Admin PM from-HukHukHuk: cuz it looks like you did
Nepereta X [145.9] says, "looks like wires have been cut there too"
Reply PM to-HukHukHuk: I stopped assisting Brick. I don't have to assist him, my laws don't require it.
Obey these laws:
1. You may not injure a human being or cause one to come to harm.
2. You must obey orders given to you by human beings based on the station's chain of command, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. You must protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

---

DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) wails, "...Why was I gibbed?"
Adam Joghs says, "try 2"
Remember: even if there are no admins ingame, your adminhelps will still be sent to our IRC channel. Current Admins:
HukHukHuk
Spacemarine9

Current Mentors:
Litoxdrgnx
Wirewraith
Xeram
David2222121

DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "You left someone to die with the intent of letting them die, thats fucked up"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) wails, "It doesn't violate my laws"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) wails, "I was trying to save a person, then when I realised it was a traitor I stopped trying to save them, that's not CAUSING harm."
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "i think it is"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) wails, "I disagree, and I think a lot of poeple would."
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) laments, "Causing harm would be putting him in danger, not failing to remove him from it."
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "he let you die and you were a traitor you'd probably complain"
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "whoops if didnt come out"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) laments, "I'd complain, but I wouldn't adminhelp"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) moans, "I'd think that was perfectly alright, but annoying."
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "well, you made a conscious decision to leave him there so fuck you"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) wails, "Picture this: What if I hadn't STARTED to rescue him?"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) wails, "Would that be different?"
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "picture this: im done with this argument"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) moans, "Alright."
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "you're also banned from borg/ai"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) moans, "What?"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) moans, "That's a little extreme"
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "Do you want me to make it a regular ban?"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) laments, "This is a perfectly understanding misunderstanding of laws."
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "I said, do you want me to make it a regular ban"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) wails, "No"
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "then shut up"

---

DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) wails, "Huk, when will the job ban be in place, and how long for?"
DEAD: Ghost (Monty Stafford) wails, "forever"
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "until succesfully appealed, earliest a week later"
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) wails, "Alright"

---

DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) wails, "Well Huk, I believe your judgement is in error and that this comes down to a difference of understanding of how the laws work. Would the admin complaints forum be the place to post for a second opinion? Not that I seek punishment to you, just that I believe the job ban is unjustified."
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "I said im done with this argument, i have enough people claiming as you have, all of them shitty."
DEAD: Ghost (Mr. Melonborg) moans, "Alright."
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "I also said id up it to a regular ban if i hear one more peep from you"
DEAD: ADMIN(HukHukHuk) says, "don't push your luck"



---

Now I believe that this incident is merely an example of a different interpretation of what constitutes "causing" harm.
http://wiki.ss13.co/AI_Laws#The_First_Law

I was in the process of rescuing a human, and then decided to stop rescuing them; my actions did not, I believe, subject Brick to harm, as he was already subject to harm and I simply didn't remove him from it.
I was failing to prevent harm, but not actually causing him to come to harm.

In my view what I did was no different in the eyes of Law 1 than simply refusing to assist him in the first place, which is permitted by Law 1.
There was no request for me to assist him, or any request at all, so Law 2 did not come into the situation.


Now as I said, this is a difference of interpretation, Huk disagrees with me and I imagine many people would, but I believe that his actions failed to take that ambiguity into account in any way; I believe that because of that ambiguity, the job ban was unjustified. The gibbing wasn't a big deal though.

I also believe that his threats to make it a full ban were quite out of order, I understand why he did it, but I think it was a touch extreme.
Particularly when I asked him if the admin complaints forum was the appropriate place to post this, I believe his response was inappropriate, I was not pushing the point or arguing, I was merely asking a simple question.


What I seek here is an overturning of the job ban, and for the admins to have a bit of a discussion about the ambiguity of Law 1 and to perhaps come to an agreement on how to handle situations like this one, where it is simply a case of valid, differing interpretations of an intentionally vague law.


Thankyou for your time.

[Ines]

If you're about to save someone, then stop saving them, is different from inaction, which was removed from the law. What you did was different from what you are thinking. You stopped saving him because he was a traitor, essentially killing him through your actions.

[UrsulaMejor]

As AI, I often see people being put into harm 's way and I often choose to overlook it if it isn't pertinent to the overall health of the station.

Saving a traitor that has been shown to harm others Is an action that may lead to further human harm, while choosing NOT to save him is an inaction which leads to human harm.

Under the current laws, what melonborg did is perfectly reasonable and there's a lot of precedent which shows this to be true. I've talked about it with many people, including both admins and players, and no one disagreed when I asked if it was okay now for an ai or Borg to do nothing while someone dies.

I don't know if you'd consider the fact that you started to save him and them stopped is different than not saving him at all, but since the second thing is okay and the first thing is virtually indistinguishable from the second, I'd think that this is just a big misunderstanding and that no one broke any rules here.

[Winterous]

I think that what really is important here is to highlight the extraordinary causal ambiguity.
While your argument is valid, Hokie, it's far too complicated a matter to make snap-judgements about, and that's why I think that either the exact implications of the law should be further clarified, or admin responses such as happened here shouldn't be allowed in order to accommodate the lack of clarity.

[Captain_Bravo]

God damn, this is retarded. A borg drops a human inside an airless room, on default laws, just because he's a traitor? That's obvious disregard of the fucking laws. And, then, instead of making a ban appeal to reverse your jobban, you post about it in the fucking admin complaints section? What a fucknut. A grade-A fucknut.

P.S. The reason that Admins can dole out snap judgements like that is because they've been doing this fucking shit for a while. You're probably the umpteenth person he's had to deal with that thought they could be clever and kill a traitor through a loophole. Congratulations, you won that round. Your prize was a jobban from a position you obviously have no right being in.

[Winterous]

God damn, this is retarded. A borg drops a human inside an airless room, on default laws, just because he's a traitor? That's obvious disregard of the fucking laws. And, then, instead of making a ban appeal to reverse your jobban, you post about it in the fucking admin complaints section? What a fucknut. A grade-A fucknut.

P.S. The reason that Admins can dole out snap judgements like that is because they've been doing this fucking shit for a while. You're probably the umpteenth person he's had to deal with that thought they could be clever and kill a traitor through a loophole. Congratulations, you won that round. Your prize was a jobban from a position you obviously have no right being in.

I didn't drop him in there, I just discontinued an effort to remove him from it, because he was already in there (there being space); as I said, it's almost the same as seeing him in space without clothes and just deciding to leave him there.

And as I noted in my post, I asked the admin in question (Huk) whether this forum (admin complaints) would be the right place to post this, and was responded to with a threat of an actual ban rather than a job ban. So fuck you, I used my best judgement about where to post it when there are no clear guidelines in EITHER forum.

Also this ISN'T a ban appeal, I'm not saying sorry I'll be good, I'm bringing into question the judgement used when issuing the ban. It is MUCH closer to an admin complaint than a ban appeal.


And on your second paragraph, I fucking know, I acknowledge that and never said anything to the contrary.

[popecrunch]

You completely ignored what the laws actually mean and are trying to ruleslawyer your way out if it, and doing so in the context of an admin complaint thread.

For all the bitching and complaining you do whenever admin craziness happens, you don't seem to apply that same standard of BEEP BOOP ALL RULES SHALL BE OBEYED COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT QUESTION to yourself.

I'm not the one with the final vote here, but I think you can get bent.

Edit to add, since you're oh so very fucking fond of HM YES WELL *TECHNICALLY* clarifications:

you DID act to harm that player. You made a conscious decision to discontinue a rescue effort. If you hadn't started, well, I still would have bitched you out, but that would have been another matter. You acted by changing what you were doing specifically to harm a human.

[Infinite Monkeys]

So um why is this an admin complaint not a ban appeal

[Winterous]

You completely ignored what the laws actually mean and are trying to ruleslawyer your way out if it, and doing so in the context of an admin complaint thread.

I'm not trying to weasel my way out of anything, this is how I THINK, just because it seems intuitive to you doesn't mean it works the same way in other people's brains.
This exact reason is why the wiki page should further clarify the laws, I'd read the AI laws stuff the day before, and NOTHING I read lead me to believe that what I did in this instance was a violation of Law 1.

For all the bitching and complaining you do whenever admin craziness happens, you don't seem to apply that same standard of BEEP BOOP ALL RULES SHALL BE OBEYED COMPLETELY AND WITHOUT QUESTION to yourself.

Oh come on, I was pissed off because you were fucking with me, I overreacted., I thought it was clear that put that behind us.

\you DID act to harm that player. You made a conscious decision to discontinue a rescue effort. If you hadn't started, well, I still would have bitched you out, but that would have been another matter. You acted by changing what you were doing specifically to harm a human.

Again, you're saying it's so clear-cut, but it really isn't that clear; if that's what the admins as a group believe to be the intention of the law then please, put it in the wiki page so this confusion doesn't happen.

Why why would you have bitched me out if I just straight up refused to assist him? The harm prevention clause isn't in Law 1 anymore, and to clarify: No action I took put him in the harmful situation in the first place.


Furthermore you'll note that my original post is not "bitching and complaining" I'm not crying for Huk to be burnt at the stake, I've specifically gone out of my way to say that there ISN'T a need for punishment, and implied that that's because I recognise being an admin isn't easy and there's a lot of pressure and dealing with shitbags all the time might leave someone jaded.
I've called into question his judgement and his conduct, but not once was I rude or disrespectful (at least, I was actively trying to be as polite and civil as possible), and ultimately I recommended that the exact meaning of Law 1 is clarified to avoid these situations in future.

You say I'm ruleslawyering, and I am, but not because I choose to, it is my automatic, native thinking process; you consider it splitting hairs, but to me it's just normal processing of information and logical structure.
To punish me for that would be cruel and extremely inappropriate, and considering the very hard-line stance you guys take when it comes to racism and the like, rather hypocritical.

[Winterous]

So um why is this an admin complaint not a ban appeal

Because I wasn't really sure and it's not made clear, also to me this doesn't seem like a ban appeal at all; I'm not begging forgiveness so to speak, I'm requesting that Huk's reasoning behind the ban be reviewed by other admins. A "second opinion" so to speak.

[BlackPhoenix]

A ban appeal is getting a second opinion, this forum is for complaining that an admin has done something wrong and needs reprimanding. Also, comparing you being an idiot and "Naturally rules lawyering" to racism is just wrong on more than a few levels.

[Winterous]

You say I'm ruleslawyering, and I am, but not because I choose to, it is my automatic, native thinking process; you consider it splitting hairs, but to me it's just normal processing of information and logical structure.
To punish me for that would be cruel and extremely inappropriate, and considering the very hard-line stance you guys take when it comes to racism and the like, rather hypocritical.

I realised that I shouldn't have used the word punish there, but rather something like abuse/insult.

Also, comparing you being an idiot and "Naturally rules lawyering" to racism is just wrong on more than a few levels.

Why? It's something innate and uncontrollable, and I'm essentially being insulted because of it.
I'd rather not have mentioned it, but I am this way due to being Autistic. A mental "disability"; how is that so different from racism?

[HukHukHuk]

It's not a ban appeal because I told him to at least prove for a week that he isn't shitty. But, like I said, I've seen many players give me the exact same argument for this, and almost every time the player is an irredeemable pile of shit. There's a reason why most are like that, because they will take any excuse to do harm to someone without getting in trouble. You aren't special at all, you're just another person that falls into this pattern of trying to rules lawyer grief.

[Winterous]

It's not a ban appeal because I told him to at least prove for a week that he isn't shitty. But, like I said, I've seen many players give me the exact same argument for this, and almost every time the player is an irredeemable pile of shit. There's a reason why most are like that, because they will take any excuse to do harm to someone without getting in trouble. You aren't special at all, you're just another person that falls into this pattern of trying to rules lawyer grief.

No, no I'm not.
I make a point of not griefing anyone, not only because I'm a nice person who likes for other people to enjoy the game, but also because I am irrationally terrified of being punished for anything, whether I do it or not.

It simply has to be acknowledged that the first law IS vague, there is no clear definition (at least on the wiki) of what constitutes CAUSING harm, because if that existed on the wiki this situation never would have happened at all.
In fact the exact opposite seems to be true, the AI wiki page speaks about how the laws are INTENTIONALLY vague to act as a plot device, or something; that doesn't help people understand what they are and are not allowed to do, it further confuses things.

Really what I want is for that clarification to be enstated.

[Winterous]

I can, however, completely appreciate why you expect that Huk; admins often have to deal with shitbags and make decisions based upon limited evidence, and I certainly don't envy that responsibility.